What is the music industry's next move against ISPs?

It won't say - which makes it appear to have made idle threats. Having warned a number of British internet service providers (ISPs) a fortnight ago that they had two weeks to "take action" or face court injunctions, the BPI - which represents record labels in the UK - now has to decide quite what it's going to do, as some (specifically, Carphone Warehouse) have responded that they won't, while others have said very little.

The subsidiary question that some were asking was: on what grounds could the BPI seek an injunction against an ISP, since its argument isn't with the ISP, but the subscribers doing the illicit file-sharing? The answer - provided by a friendly ISP - is that it could take the ISPs to court under section 97 of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, on the grounds that the ISP has not "taken action" to prevent the breach of the BPI members' copyright - such as Island Records, whose artist Amy Winehouse last year won the not-sought-after accolade of "most pirated artist" following the runaway success of her album Back To Black.

The trouble though is that the law is silent on precisely what constitutes "taking action". Does it mean (as the BPI is urging ISPs to interpret it) "tell people who are using file-sharing networks to download copyighted music to stop or they'll get kicked off the system in a three-strikes-and-you're-out model"? Or does it mean - as one ISP suggested to us it does, at least to their legal department - writing a letter to every subscriber reminding them that downloading copyrighted material and not paying for it is illegal? Or does it mean, as Charles Dunstone, head of TalkTalk has interpreted it, telling the BPI, in almost so many words, to go forth and multiply?

The BPI said this week only that "we've had a response from Carphone Warehouse within the timeframe and our dialogue continues. We are focused on entering commercial discussions with all ISPs that would increase the number of safe and legal digital music services available to their customers.

"But we believe they should act when they know customers are using their accounts to access music illegally via unregulated and unlicensed services."

Brave words - but for the fact that the BPI is silent on quite what it will do next. It has to be said that that doesn't look like an effective strategy, for in business it's never good to appear to make idle threats, nor to set deadlines which then expire without any effect.

Even so, time, even if not on the internet scale, is on the BPI's side. In February the government warned in a strategy paper that if the two sides couldn't agree, it would begin to bring in legislation from April of next year. Roosevelt said "speak softly, and carry a big stick"; better still to get the government to carry it for you. ISPs, beware.